Agenda packet — Costa Mesa City Council, July 21, 2026 (part 2 of 2)

171

Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 1 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA,

CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA “THE COSTA MESA FAIR BUSINESS LICENSE REFORM, SMALL BUSINESS PROTECTION MEASURE” AT THE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 202 6, AS CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 2026-21

WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa’s business license tax was first adopted over 41 years ago, in 1985, and requires all business es to obtain a business l icense to operate in the City; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the business license tax is to raise revenue for the City to provide for the public safety services, transportation network such as roads and sidewalks, and other general services provided to the businesses within the City; and WHEREAS, addressing homelessness, preventing crime and maintaining 911 emergency, fire and police response are top community priorities; and WHEREAS, the business license tax is based upon the gross receipts of each business; and
WHEREAS, the maximum business license tax imposed by the City since 1985 is $200, regardless of how much revenue a business earns; and WHEREAS, over time, the business license tax cap of $200 has shifted a larger and larger portion of the tot al business license tax onto smaller businesses, while big box stores and luxury companies earning millions pay no more than $200, thousands of dollars less than these stores pay in some other nearby cities; and WHEREAS, reform is needed to fairly set the business license tax to protect small businesses from increases, while requiring larger businesses to pay their fair share of taxes for the services they receive; and
WHEREAS, this measure does not increase taxes on residents, and WHEREAS, at its December 2, 2025 meeting, the City Council directed staff to explore the potential placement of a Business License Reform Measure of measures on the Attachment 1
172

Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 2 of 5
November 3, 2026 Ballot; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Finance and Pension Advisory Committee considered potential revisions and reform to the business license tax and made a recommendation to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City’s year -over-year expenses for City operations are increasing at a faster pace than its year-over-year revenues; and WHEREAS, the City Council has caused to be completed needs assessments of its city facilities, its city parks, its pavement management system and its information technology, resulting in identified needs totaling approximately $11 million per year to implement, over and above existing operations costs; and WHEREAS, the City Council has directed staff to streamline systems to improve services to the public and reduce costs, and to seek grants and other funding sources for the City’s most critical needs; and
WHEREAS, the prop erty taxes paid by residents and property owners have increased over time as properties have changed hands and been improved, to provide revenue to the City to fund essential city services; and WHEREAS, user fees for services which primarily benefit the i ndividual receiving the service are able to be increased periodically to help offset the cost of providing those services; and
WHEREAS, a General election on Tuesday, November 3, 2026 has been called by Resolution No. 2026-21, adopted on June 2, 2026, and WHEREAS, the City Council also desires to submit to the voters at the el ection a question relating to “The Costa Mesa Fair Business License Reform, Small Business Protection Measure.”

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. That the City Council, pursuant to its right and authority, does order submitted to the voters at the General Municipal Election the following question:
173

Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 3 of 5

SECTION 2 . That the p roposed measure submitted to the voters is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

SECTION 3. That the vote requirement for the measures to pass is a majority (50% +1) of the votes cast.

SECTION 4. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.

SECTION 5. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law.

SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21
st day of July 2026.

_________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________ ____________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney Measure __: The Costa Mesa Fair Business License
Reform, Small Business Protection Measure
Response Vote
Without taxing residents, shall the measure be adopted, updating Costa Mesa’s 41-year-old business license tax, ensuring large businesses pay their proportionate share and helping fund general city services including keeping public areas safe/clean; preventing crime/burglaries; addressing homelessness; maintaining Costa Mesa’s financial stability; revising the tax rate to 50¢ per $1,000 gross receipts, with no increase for small businesses; generating approximately $5,600,000 annually until ended by voters, requiring audits, spending disclosure, funds locally controlled?

Yes

174

Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 4 of 5

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss

CITY OF COSTA MESA )

I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 202 6-00 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of July, 2020, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 22
nd day of July 2026.

_________________________________

BRENDA GREEN, CITY CLERK

Attachments:

1. Exhibit A – Proposed Ordinance: The Costa Mesa Fair Business License Reform, Small Business Protection Measure
175

CITY-SPONSORED INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS

The City Council for the City of Costa Mesa submits the following measure to the voters of the City for approval and enactment:

The People of Costa Mesa find:
(a) The City of Costa Mesa’s business license tax was first adopted in 1985, and requires all business to obtain a business license to operate in the City. (b) The purpose of the business license tax is to raise revenue for the City to provide for the public safety services, transportation network such as roads and sidewalks, and other services provided to the businesses within the City. (c) The business license tax is based upon the gross receipts of each business. (d) The maximum business license tax imposed by the City since 1985 is $200, regardless of how much revenue a business earns.
(e) Over time, the business license tax cap of $200 has shifted a larger and larger portion of the total business license tax onto smaller businesses, while companies earning millions pay no more than $200.
(f) Reform is needed to fairly set the business license tax to protect small businesses from increases, while requiring larger businesses to pay their fair share of taxes for the services they receive.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Code Amendment.

This ordinance amends the Costa Mesa Municipal Code as follows, and supersedes any provisions that are inconsistent with this ordinance, and shall be known as “ The Costa Mesa Fair Business License Reform, Small Business Protection Measure, ” and shall be referred to herein as the “Measure.”
SECTION 2. Purpose.

The purpose of the Measure is to revise the Costa Mesa Municipal Code to retain the current business license tax for businesses with annual gross receipts of $500,000 or less, and update the business license tax to fifty cents per one thousand dollars of gross receipts for businesses with annual gross receipt exceeding $500,000, subject to a maximum annual tax of fifteen thousand dollars for businesses earning $30 Million dollars or more annually.

SECTION 3.

Section 9-25 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code is amended to read:

Attachment 2
176
Every business not otherwise provided for in this article shall pay a business tax based upon the annual gross receipts of the business according to the following schedule:

Total Gross Receipts
From To Rate
$0 $1,000 $0 [no change]
$1,001 $25,000 $25 [no change]
$25,001 $40,000 $35 [no change]
$40,001 $75,000 $45 [no change]
$75,001 $200,000 $60 [no change]
$200,001 $500,000 $100 [no change]
$500,001 $1,000,000
Rate of $0.50 per $1,000 $1,000,001 $5,000,000
$5,000,001 $30,000,000
Greater than $30,000,000 Maximum Rate $15,000

SECTION 4. Inconsistencies.

Any provision of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 5. Severability.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The People of the City of Costa Mesa hereby declare that they would have adopted this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not 177
declared invalid or unconstitutional, without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 6. Effective Date.

This ordinance shall take effect according to law ten days after certification of the election at which it is adopted.

178
Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 1 of 3

CITY OF COSTA MESA
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA,

REQUESTING THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 202 6,

WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 10403 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa called a General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2026 for the purpose of submitting a proposed ordinance to the voters of the City of Costa Mesa for their consideration; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa is submitting to the voters of the City of Costa Mesa a question relating to the adoption of a proposed ordinance; and

WHEREAS, it is desirable that the G eneral Municipal Election be consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held on the same date and that within the c ity the precincts, vote centers, and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the Orange County Registrar of Voters canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election and that the election be held in all respects as if there were only one election.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA,

CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of Section 10403 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Elect ion with the Statewide General E lection on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, for the purpose of submitting to the voters of the City of Costa Mesa a question relating to the adoption of a proposed ordinance.

SECTION 2. That the following measure is to appear on the ballot as follows:

Attachment 3
179
Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 2 of 3

SECTION 3. That the proposed complete text of the ordinance to be submitted to the voters is attached as Exhibit A.

SECTION 4. That the vote requirement for the measures to pass is a majority (50% +1) of the votes cast.

SECTION 5. That the Orange County Registrar of Voters is authorized to canvass the returns of the General Municipal E lection. The election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used. The election will be held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the statewide election.

SECTION 6. That the Board of Supervisors is requested to issue instructions to the county election department to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated election.

SECTION 7. That the City of Costa Mesa recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for any costs for services upon the presentation of a properly submitted bill.

SECTION 8 . That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the County election department of the County of Orange.

SECTION 9 . That the City Cle rk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

Measure __: The Costa Mesa Fair Business License
Reform, Small Business Protection Measure
Response Vote
Without taxing residents, shall the measure be adopted, updating Costa Mesa’s 41-year-old business license tax, ensuring large businesses pay their proportionate share and helping fund general city services including keeping public areas safe/clean; preventing crime/burglaries; addressing homelessness; maintaining Costa Mesa’s financial stability; revising the tax rate to 50¢ per $1,000 gross receipts, with no increase for small business es; generating approximately $5,600,000 annually until ended by voters, requiring audits, spending disclosure, funds locally controlled?

Yes

180
Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 3 of 3
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of July, 2020.

____________________________
John Stephens, Mayor Pro Tem

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_____________________________ __ ________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss

CITY OF COSTA MESA )

I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY tha t foregoing Resolution No. 2026- XX was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 21
st day of July, 2026, by the following roll
call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 22
nd day of July, 2026.

_________________________________

BRENDA GREEN, CITY CLERK

181

Attachment 4
Resolution No. 2026-xx Page 1 of 3

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA,

CALIFORNIA SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING A WRITTEN ARGUMENT

REGARDING A CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO

PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS

WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Costa Mesa, California, on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, at which there will be submitted to the voters the following measure:

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. That the City Council authorizes the following member(s) of its body

( Mayor In Favor) or (Mayor Against)
( Mayor Pro Tem In Favor) or (Mayor Pro Tem Against) (Council Member In Favor) or (Council Member Against) (Council Member In Favor) or (Council Member Against) (Council Member In Favor) or (Council Member Against) (Council Member In Favor) or (Council Member Against) (Council Member In Favor) or (Council Member Against)

to file (a) written argument not exceeding 300 words regarding the City measure as specified above, accompanied by the printed names(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California. The arguments may be changed or withdrawn until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against the City measure may be submitted to the City Clerk.

Yes

182

Attachment 4
Resolution No. 2026-xx Page 2 of 3

The arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, with the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers who is the author of the argument. The arguments shall be accompanied by the Form of Statement To Be Filed By Author(s) of Argument.

SECTION 2. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the City Attorney, unless the organization or salaries of the office of the City Attorney are affected.

a. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measur e not exceeding 500 words showing the effect of the measure on existing law and the operation of the measure. If a measure affects the organization or salaries of the office of the City Attorney, the City Clerk shall prepare the impartial analysis.
b. The analysis shall include a statement indicating whether the measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters or by the governing body of the city.
c. In the event the entire text of the measure is not printed on the ballot, nor in the voter information portion of the sample ballot, there shall be printed immediately below the impartial analysis, in no less than 10- point type, the following: “The above statement is an impartial analysis of Ordinance or Measure __. If you desire a copy of the ordinance or measure, please call the election official’s office at 714-754-5225 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you. d. The impartial analysis shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk the filing of primary arguments.

SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON JULY 21, 2026.

____________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_____________________________ _______________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow City Attorney

183

Attachment 4
Resolution No. 2026-xx Page 3 of 3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss

CITY OF COSTA MESA )

I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2026-xx- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 21 st day of July, 2026, by
the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 22
nd day of July, 2026.

_________________________________

BRENDA GREEN, CITY CLERK
184
Attachment 5

Resolution No. 2026-xx Page 1 of 2

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-xx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA,

CALIFORNIA PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY

MEASURES SUBMITTED AT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

WHEREAS, California Elections Code Section 9282 provides for the filing of written arguments in favor or against city measures not to exceed 300 words in length; and

WHEREAS, California Elections Code Section 9285 authorizes the City Council, by majority vote, to adopt provisions to provide for the filing of rebuttal arguments for city measures submitted at municipal elections;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA , CALIFORNIA DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Pursuant to California Elections Code section 9285, when the elections official has selected arguments for and against the measure which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the elections official shall send a copy of an argument in favor of the proposition to the authors of any argument against the measure and a copy of an argument against the measure to the authors of any argument in favor of the measure immediately upon receiving the arguments.

The author or a majority of the authors of an ar gument relating to a city measure may prepare and submit a rebuttal argument not exceeding 250 words or may authorize in writing any other person or persons to prepare, submit or sign the rebuttal argument.

No more than five authors may sign a rebuttal argument.

The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, with the printed names and signatures of the authors submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers, not more than 10 days after the final date for filing direct arguments. The rebuttal arguments shall be accompanied by the Form of Statement To Be Filed By Authors of Argument.

Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments.

Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut.

SECTION 2. This resolution repeals previous resolutions providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for city measures, except for referendum measures.

185

SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON JULY 21, 2026.

____________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_____________________________ _______________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss

CITY OF COSTA MESA )

I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2026-xx was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 21 st day of July, 2026, by the
following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 22nd day of July, 2026.

_________________________________

BRENDA GREEN, CITY CLERK

186
5 Executive Summary
Facilities Master Plan
Attachment 6
187
6 City of Costa Mesa | Facilities Master Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Costa Mesa’s facilities are fundamental to delivering public services, supporting employees, protecting public safety, and serving the community. Many of these facilities, however, were built decades ago and are beginning to show the effects of age, changing operational needs, and evolving community expectations. As the City continues to grow, it faces an important opportunity: to strategically reinvest in its civic assets in a way that improves service delivery, strengthens operational resilience, and ensures responsible stewardship of public resources.

The Facilities Master Plan provides a comprehensive, long- term roadmap to help the City make those decisions. Rather than focusing solely on building conditions, the plan examines how facilities support City operations, employees, and
residents while identifying opportunities to improve efficiency, accessibility, and long-term value. The study evaluated approximately 316,000 square feet across 18 City-owned
and leased facilities through facility condition assessments, operational analyses, stakeholder engagement, demographic and staffing projections, and financial modeling. Together, these analyses establish a data-driven framework for prioritizing investments over the next twenty years.

The assessment found that Costa Mesa’s facility portfolio remains a valuable public asset, but one that requires proactive investment. About 80 percent of the City’s facility square footage is more than 30 years old, administrative buildings are approaching capacity, emergency operations require
modernization, and many work environments no longer support today’s methods of service delivery. At the same time, the City has opportunities to improve equitable access to services, particularly in Westside neighborhoods, enhance sustainability, and create more welcoming and efficient public spaces.

BACKGROUND & CONTEXT

KEY FINDINGS
188
7 RECOMMENDATIONS

IMPLEMENTATION
The plan prioritizes addressing deferred maintenance across the City’s facility portfolio before deficiencies become more costly. It also expands community access and public safety services through targeted investments on the Westside, including redevelopment of the existing Police Substation into a modern multi-service facility. In addition, Fire Department facilities require renovations and improvements to better meet modern operational space needs. Other priority improvements include strengthening emergency preparedness through development of a dedicated Emergency Operations Center and modernizing the Corporation Yard to support future fleet and operational needs. Sustainability is integrated throughout these recommendations by incorporating energy-efficient building systems, electric vehicle infrastructure, and resilient facility design into future capital improvements.

Beyond the most critical facility improvement needs, the plan also explores longer-term space solutions and future planning opportunities. These include modernizing City Hall to improve customer experience and workplace efficiency, creating a centralized public service center on the first floor, introducing consistent workplace standards throughout administrative offices, and renovating facilities to better accommodate future organizational growth. Additional opportunities include improving Police operations by repurposing the underutilized helipad, replacing the Historic Society Building with expanded multi-use City space, and evaluating long-term ownership strategies for the Balearic Community Center.

Importantly, the plan is designed to be implementable. Rather than recommending a series of independent projects, it establishes a phased twenty-year investment strategy that coordinates maintenance, renovations, and new construction in a logical sequence aligned with operational priorities and financial capacity. Approximately two-thirds of the City’s portfolio remains in service through continued maintenance, while targeted renovations and selective new construction address the most significant service and facility gaps. Financial modeling provides a realistic understanding of both capital and ongoing operating costs, enabling the City to make informed funding decisions over time.

Ultimately, this Facilities Master Plan is about more than buildings. It is a strategy for strengthening how Costa Mesa serves its community. By aligning facility investments with service delivery, operational performance, financial sustainability, and community priorities, the City is positioned to make thoughtful, transparent decisions that preserve public assets, improve the resident experience, and create resilient civic facilities that will continue serving Costa Mesa for decades to come. introducing
ilities to bett
consistent workplace standards throughout administrative offices, accommodate future organizational growth. Additional opportunit ter on the first floor, introducing
, and renovating facilities to better
ties include improving Police operat
izational growth. Additional opport
accommodate future organizational growth. A
by repurposing the underutilized helipad, rep
ties include improving Police operat
189
Deferred Maintenance and Lifecycle Renewal Cost Estimates (Replacement Reserve) Facility (year built) 2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2040 2041-2045 Total Balearic Community Center (1965) 43,000 228,000 722,000 256,000 112,000 1,362,000 Bridge Shelter (1972) 161,000 546,000 198,000 1,107,000 194,000 2,207,000 City Hall (1965) 92,000 4,480,000 3,995,000 471,600 6,974,000 16,012,600 Communications Center (1981) 189,000 211,000 364,000 603,000 65,000 1,432,000 Corp Yard Buildings (1989) 178,000 1,427,000 1,930,000 2,730,000 264,000 6,529,000 Costa Mesa Tennis Center (1962) 0 72,000 480,000 151,000 367,000 1,070,000 Downtown Recreation Center (2001) 62,000 955,000 1,140,000 341,000 2,227,000 4,725,000 Fire Station #1 (2018) 48,000 250,000 247,000 800,000 256,000 1,601,000 Fire Station #3 (1979) 557,000 739,000 145,000 186,000 375,000 2,002,000 Fire Station #4 (1967) 352,000 1,015,000 166,000 417,000 451,000 2,401,000 Fire Station #5 (1988) 189,000 433,000 1,219,000 354,000 352,000 2,547,000 Fire Station #6 (1992) 185,000 403,000 950,000 527,000 386,000 2,450,000 Historical Society Building (1980) 36,000 570,000 56,000 324,000 122,000 1,108,000 Mesa Verde Library (1965) 69,000 120,000 828,000 428,000 115,000 1,560,000 Police Facility & Helipad (1967) 26,000 1,642,000 2,450,000 4,753,000 1,452,000 10,323,000 Police Substation (1958) 585,000 416,000 183,000 386,000 76,000 1,646,000 Senior Center (1992) 486,000 1,633,000 1,337,000 796,000 1,392,000 5,643,000 Grand Total 3,257,000 15,140,000 16,410,000 14,630,600 15,180,000 64,618,600 New Construction/Renovation Cost Estimates
Escalated Cost
(Based on Implementation Timeline)
Communications Buidling
Renovate Communications Building 4,000,000 4,000,000
Fire Station
Replace FS#2 16,500,000 16,500,000
Renovate FS#3 2,730,000 3,558,000
Renovate FS#5 2,730,000 4,164,000
Renovate FS#6 3,864,000 5,448,000
Replace FS#4 8,400,000 10,131,000
Westside Substation
Demolish Existing Substation and
Construction New City Facility
10,545,678 14,233,000
Tennis Center
Replace 1,017,000 1,017,000
Total 49,786,678 59,051,000
Facilities 2025 Cost
190
Costa Mesa
Etyo/tAJb

PARK ASSESSMENT
2025
DprVeDpaCrree"atibyve eves
Attachment 7
191

PARK ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION
Overview of Park Assessment Masterplan
Park Assessments were conducted at all public parks within the City of Costa Mesa and have been documented herein.

The report identifies physical condition of amenities, structures, pathways, playgrounds, and existing program elements in each park. This park assessment is essential for the City of Costa Mesa in identifying and prioritizing improvements, allowing for safe, functional and enjoyable spaces for the community to recreate and enjoy.

This Park Assessment is informed by extensive site analysis which documents, quantifies, and considers existing site conditions to provide a thorough account of each park. Only limited accessibility deficiencies are identified where paths are not provided to existing improvements. The primary focus of this assessment is to identify and provide an unbiased report highlighting essential improvements. This assessment does not identify under-programmed parks. �� Cost� Mesa
ll:, ,/1]�,4•
ti,
f
l/)
0:::
:::)
:r: :::,,::
0 0
0:::
co

BAKER ST
0 0:::
0 � � co
0:::
®
:r:
@
�

4. �«
<,
@ Perez Park
0 Brentwood Park @ Ketchum-Libolt Park @) Pinkley Park
0 Canyon Park @ Lindbergh Park @ Shalimar Park
© Del Mesa Park @ Lions Park @ Shiffer Park
© Estancia Park @ Marina View Park @ Smallwood Park
® Fairview Park @ Mesa Verde Park @ Suburbia Park
(D Gisler Park @ Moon Park @ Tanager Park
© Harper Park @ Neth Park @ Tewinkle Park
® Heller Park @ Paularino Park @ Vista Park
Park Assessment

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Goal 1: Prioritize parks with the greatest need for improvement • Visit each park site and compile photographic documentation of park conditions • Evaluate park conditions
• Assign priority ranking for each park to guide improvements Goal 2: Identify and assess existing playgrounds
• Assess playground conditions for safety, accessibility, and usability • Identify outdated or damaged equipment needing repair or replacement • Provide recommendations for upgrades, renovations, or new installations Goal 3: Identify facilities/buildings where improvements are needed • Assess the condition of all park facilities and buildings • Assess the priority of the improvements
• Provide suggestions on how the facilities can be improved Goal 4: Improve safety and site access
• Identify and address potential safety hazards
• Ensure all walkways and paths have safe and accessible circulation • Ensure all playgrounds meet or exceed current safety standards • Identify site furnishing in need of repair and/or replacement Goal 5: Evaluate long-term maintenance needs
• Identify areas where maintenance needs to be up-kept
• Provide suggestions on how the park can be maintained Goal 6: Identify sustainable opportunities
• Identify areas where landscape and irrigation need improvement • Provide suggestions on how certain areas in the park can be used for sustainable practices
� Park Assessment
Costa Mesa CITY OF COSTA MESACuy,/.'k,.:/rJ; 193

PARK CRITERIA
Overview of Park Criteria
The evaluation of key aspects includes safety, quality, and usability. Each park has been reviewed for seven categories:

Playgrounds, Structures, Fields & Courts, Amenities, Hardscape, Landscape/Irrigation and Maintenance. Each category will be scored on a 1 to 5 scale and weighted to aid prioritization. Together, these categories provide a comprehensive snapshot of how well a park serves its community and where improvements are needed.

Category Score Description
Playgrounds 1-5 Variety, condition, safety, inclusivity, surfacing, age (45% of score) Structures 1-5 Restrooms, gazebos, shade structures, walls, bridges (20% of score) Fields/Courts 1-5 Quality and usability of sports fields, courts, surfacing (10% of score) Amenities 1-5 Barbecues, benches, lighting, drinking fountains, waste receptacles, (10% of score) monument signs, fitness equipments
Hardscape 1-5 Condition of walkways, accessibility to maintain features (5% of score) La ndsca pe/1 rrigation 1-5 Health and variety of plants, shade, and visible irrigation equipment (5% of score) Maintenance 1-5 Overall cleanliness, repairs, graffiti control (5% of score)

SCORING SYSTEM
Overview of Scoring System
The park scoring system uses a 1 to 5 scale for each category to evaluate different aspects of a park's quality, function, and condition. It ensures a comprehensive, consistent, and objective approach to assessing and comparing parks. 0809
Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent
Major issues, Functional, limited Usable and safe, but In good condition, High-quality, clean, broken, unsafe, use, or in noticeable could be improved; functional, inclusive, fully unusable, or disrepair some wear and tear accessible, and functional severely neglected well-integrated
Park Assessment
CITY OF COSTA MESA 194

PRIORITY RANKING SYSTEM
Overview of Priority Ranking System
The priority ranking system is used to determine which parks are in immediate need for improvements, repairs, or investment. Each park is assigned a priority level from A to E.

This ranking is based on the total scores from the park criteria categories. Parks that score lower across multiple categories are given higher priority ranking (e.g. Dor E), signaling a greater need for improvements. This system will guide the City of Costa Mesa to objectively compare parks and allocate resources more effectively.

Very Low Priority /
minimal or no
intervention
needed
Low Priority
Overall Park Priority Ranking
Ranking Park Name
B Balearic Park
C Brentwood Park
B Canyon Park
B Del Mesa Park
C Estancia Park
C Fairview Park
C Gisler Park
C Harper Park
C Heller Park
B Jordan Park
C Ketchum-Libolt Park
C Lindbergh Park
B Lions Park
C Marina View Park
B Mesa Verde Park
C Moon Park
B Neth Park
� ParkAssessment
Costa � CITY OF COSTA MESA Lilg o{.'f.s.J/y,jJ
Medium Priority
Ranking
B
·lLUl!I
B
C
C
B
11:lillll
B
C
B
C
B
C
II f � Ill
High Priority Highest Priority
for improvement /
funding/ repair
Park Name
Paularino Park
Perez Park
Pinkley Park
Shalimar Park
Shiffer Park
Smallwood Park
Suburbia Park
Tanager Park
Tewinkle Park
Vista Park
Wakeham Park
Wilson Park
Wimbledon Park
Bark Park
Raleigh Park
195
Park Project Title Priority
Fiscal
Year Total Costs
Harper Park Playground Replacement 1 26-27 400,000$
Moon Park Playground Replacement 2 26-27 700,000$
Lindbergh Park Playground Replacement 3 28-29 692,350$
Heller Park Playground & Restroom Improvement 4 28-29 1,535,400$ Marina View Park Playground Replacement 5 30-31 871,600$ Wakeham Park Playground & Restroom Improvement 6 Future 2,171,800$ Canyon Park Playground Replacement 7 Future 1,311,300$
Mesa Verde Park Playground Replacement 8 Future 580,200$ Vista Park Playground & Restroom Improvement 9 Future 1,353,420$ Smallwood Park Playground Replacement 10 Future 1,024,000$ Gisler Park Playground Replacement 11 Future 783,500$
Wilson Park Playground Replacement 12 Future 961,000$
Del Mesa Park Playground Replacement 13 Future 778,220$ Wimbledon Park Playground Replacement 14 Future 578,000$ Shiffer Park Playground & Restroom Improvement 15 Future 1,272,160$ Balearic Community Center Playground Replacement 16 Future 888,000$ Balearic Park Playground Replacement 17 Future 1,095,200$ Estancia Park Hardscape & Seat Walls 18 Future 230,500$ Fairview Park Restroom Renovations & Hardscape Repairs 19 Future 547,900$ TeWinkle Park Restroom Building 20 Future 389,000$
18,163,550$
Park Assessment - Estimated Costs
196

Costa Mesa City CouncilJuly 21, 2026

Costa Mesa City Council
July 21, 2026